[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6633 December 15, 1989 WASTE: County surcharge for removal of household waste MCL 124.508a; MSA 5.4088(8a) does not require 100% participation by each local unit of government within the county in order for a county or agency to implement the surcharge for waste reduction, recycling and composting programs in a local unit of government which has entered into an interlocal agreement with the county or agency for collection and disposition of the surcharge. Honorable Connie Binsfeld State Senator The Capitol Lansing, MI 48909 You have requested my opinion on the interpretation of 1989 PA 138, which amended the Urban Cooperation Act of 1967 MCL, MCL 124.501 et seq; MSA 5.4088(1) et seq, to allow counties to impose a surcharge of not more than $2.00 per month or $25.00 per year on households within the county to finance waste reduction, recycling and composting programs. The Act provides for interlocal agreements between the county or agency responsible for preparing the county's solid waste management plan and local units of government regarding the collection and disposition of the surcharge. You ask whether a county must have interlocal agreements with 100% of the townships and municipalities within the county before imposing the surcharge in any single local unit of government. Section 8a of the Act, MCL 124.508a; MSA 5.4088(8a), reads in pertinent part as follows: (1) Subject to the requirement of subsection (2), a county, by resolution of the county board of commissioners of the county, or the agency responsible for preparing the solid waste management plan for counties with a population of 690,000 or more ... may impose a surcharge on households within the county of not more than $2.00 per month or $25.00 per year per household for waste reduction programs and for the collection of consumer source separated materials for recycling or composting.... (2) A county of agency shall defer the imposition and collection of a surcharge imposed under subsection (1) in a local unit of government within that county until the county or agency has entered into an interlocal agreement under this act relating to the collection and disposition of the surcharge with the local unit of government. However, a city in a county in which the agency described in subsection (1) prepared the update to the county's solid waste management plan as provided in Act No. 641 of the Public Acts of 1978 shall not enter into an interlocal agreement under this subsection if the city has levied a tax of 3 mills on real property within the city for the disposal or management of solid waste in that city. Petitions for a referendum election on the question of entering an interlocal agreement under this subsection may be filed with the local units [sic] clerk no later than 6 months following adoption of a resolution of the county or agency to impose the surcharge or 6 months following any increase in the surcharge. Upon petition of 10% of the qualified electors of a local unit of government voting in the last general election prior to the adoption of the interlocal agreement by the governing body, the local unit of government shall hold a referendum on whether to reject the entrance into or terminate an interlocal agreement under this subsection. The statute contemplates that a county or agency will initially pass a resolution to impose the surcharge, but will not implement it in any township or municipality until the township or municipality has entered into an agreement with the county regarding the collection and disposition of the surcharge. The first sentence of subsection (2) states that a county shall defer implementation "in a local unit of government within that the county until the county or agency has entered into an interlocal agreement ... with the local unit of government." (Emphasis added.) The use of the singular form in that sentence implies that a county could implement the program in some governmental units within the county and not in others. The remainder of subsection (2) further suggests that 100% participation is not required for implementation of the surcharge. The second sentence prohibits certain cities that have enacted a 3 mill property tax for solid waste from entering into interlocal agreements and the third and fourth sentences allow for a referendum by voters of the local unit on the question of entering into, or remaining in, an interlocal agreement. MCL 124.508a(2); MSA 5.4088(8a)(2), does not contain any language expressly requiring that 100% of all local units of government within a county must agree to participate. To construe the statute as imposing such a requirement, moreover, would be inconsistent with the statutory structure allowing the voters in the local governmental units to decide by petition for a referendum upon participation; obviously, if the voters of a single city, village or township opted out of the system, they would effectively remove the freedom of choice of the other local units in the county if 100% participation is required. By the same token, if a city in the county had enacted the 3 mill property tax and was, therefore, prohibited from entering into an interlocal agreement, the other local units would likewise be prohibited from entering into an agreement if the statute were read to require 100% participation. The Legislature clearly did not intend such a result. The obvious purpose of 1989 PA 138 is to encourage and provide funds for recycling. It is beyond question that the Legislature vigorously supports recycling. See, e.g., the Clean Michigan Fund Act, MCL 299.371 et seq; MSA 13.33(1) et seq; the Solid Waste Management Act, MCL 299.401 et seq; MSA 13.29(1) et seq; and the Recycling Makes Cents, Office Paper Recovery Act, MCL 299.461 et seq; MSA 13.27(41) et seq, among others. It is a familiar canon that the primary object of statutory construction is to effectuate the purpose intended by the legislature. Smith v City Comm of Grand Rapids, 281 Mich 235; 274 NW 776 (1937). It is my opinion, therefore, that MCL 124.508a; MSA 5.4088(8a), does not require 100% participation by each local unit of government within the county and that, accordingly, a county or agency may implement the surcharge in each community in the county that has entered into an interlocal agreement with the county or agency as required by subsection (2). Frank J. Kelley Attorney General
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]